08-29-2025, 02:17 PM
I want to go back to the original issue: transfer restrictions (not admissions standards per se)
I think this refers to the notoriously low rate of undergraduate transfers permitted. I think that is at least partially affected by our stingy <4% frosh admission rate, and by other issues (housing, facilities, etc) that for one reason or another seem to have kept our student body undergraduate numbers at roughly the same levels for the past 50-60 years.
I am a bit bothered by what I see as the schizophrenic view of two Stanfords: undergrad and grad, which are totally different universes (I can speak directly to this, having been a student in both).
Undergrad was for many of us the first time out of the nest, an eye-opening experience and exposure to new people, new ideas, a much deeper academic dig into things like history, literature, philosophy, and yeah, a chance to grow up and find ourselves, and a chance to be and feel part of a community of intelligent folks.
The grad universe is all about research and grants, or professional preparation (Biz, Med, Law, Ed) -- with a few exceptions, I didn't see a lot of identification with the Stanford Community as a whole IMHO, and certainly almost no interaction with the undergrad universe. And going all the way back to Caspar, it got most of the attention from the administration because there always seemed to be a big institutional motivation to land those research grants or Silicon Valley donations. I really think there's an imbalance here.
I would really like to see a bit more emphasis on the care, feeding and development of the undergrad community, and I think more undergrad transfers would be very helpful in that regard. After all, transfers are older, have more experience, and can provide important perspective. (I know I had several upperclass mentors who helped me immensely). They have proven that they can "do the work" required to be academically competent. And, in the case of athletes, they have shown they have the grit and energy to hold their own both in the classroom and on the field.
Now here's where admissions standards come in: I would submit that a 3.0 GPA at the college level is just as impressive as a 4.0+ in high school. Most of us here are Stanford folks. Generalize for a moment: Ask yourself how hard HS was academically for you, compared to your first 2 years at Stanford. I think it's apples and oranges to apply the same admissions standards to HS and transfer applicants. I'll say again -- transfers are relatively proven commodities.
IMHO the recruiting issue is not just about athletes, but about transfers in general. I wonder if "word has gotten around" that it's not worth considering trying to transfer to Stanford. I think some positive steps need to be taken to bring in more undergrad transfers, in terms of both policy and results. I think that can be done without compromising the integrity of the University's mission of higher education (if indeed higher education is the goal).
Of course, the strings attached these days are NIL, etc. I think of that as the modern equivalent of scholarship/financial aid money. Back in the day, Stanford offered me more financial aid than the 2 other schools in my top 3. That certainly played a role in my decision. But as everyone on this board knows, NIL money is a whole different thread for discussion.
I think this refers to the notoriously low rate of undergraduate transfers permitted. I think that is at least partially affected by our stingy <4% frosh admission rate, and by other issues (housing, facilities, etc) that for one reason or another seem to have kept our student body undergraduate numbers at roughly the same levels for the past 50-60 years.
I am a bit bothered by what I see as the schizophrenic view of two Stanfords: undergrad and grad, which are totally different universes (I can speak directly to this, having been a student in both).
Undergrad was for many of us the first time out of the nest, an eye-opening experience and exposure to new people, new ideas, a much deeper academic dig into things like history, literature, philosophy, and yeah, a chance to grow up and find ourselves, and a chance to be and feel part of a community of intelligent folks.
The grad universe is all about research and grants, or professional preparation (Biz, Med, Law, Ed) -- with a few exceptions, I didn't see a lot of identification with the Stanford Community as a whole IMHO, and certainly almost no interaction with the undergrad universe. And going all the way back to Caspar, it got most of the attention from the administration because there always seemed to be a big institutional motivation to land those research grants or Silicon Valley donations. I really think there's an imbalance here.
I would really like to see a bit more emphasis on the care, feeding and development of the undergrad community, and I think more undergrad transfers would be very helpful in that regard. After all, transfers are older, have more experience, and can provide important perspective. (I know I had several upperclass mentors who helped me immensely). They have proven that they can "do the work" required to be academically competent. And, in the case of athletes, they have shown they have the grit and energy to hold their own both in the classroom and on the field.
Now here's where admissions standards come in: I would submit that a 3.0 GPA at the college level is just as impressive as a 4.0+ in high school. Most of us here are Stanford folks. Generalize for a moment: Ask yourself how hard HS was academically for you, compared to your first 2 years at Stanford. I think it's apples and oranges to apply the same admissions standards to HS and transfer applicants. I'll say again -- transfers are relatively proven commodities.
IMHO the recruiting issue is not just about athletes, but about transfers in general. I wonder if "word has gotten around" that it's not worth considering trying to transfer to Stanford. I think some positive steps need to be taken to bring in more undergrad transfers, in terms of both policy and results. I think that can be done without compromising the integrity of the University's mission of higher education (if indeed higher education is the goal).
Of course, the strings attached these days are NIL, etc. I think of that as the modern equivalent of scholarship/financial aid money. Back in the day, Stanford offered me more financial aid than the 2 other schools in my top 3. That certainly played a role in my decision. But as everyone on this board knows, NIL money is a whole different thread for discussion.